2008 election

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think both sides have a couple of strong contenders for the party ticket.

Republicans:
John McCain for the image like other posters have said.
Chuck Hagel who has got into the spotlight with his Iraq stand.
Major Giuliani for the image like McCain because of 9/11.
I believe McCain wins the ticket because Giuliani won't run and Hagel is too good of canidate to actually win. We don't get men like Hagel in the Oval Office.

Democrats:
Hilary Clinton for lots of obvious reasons.
Joe Biden for being the kind of no nosense politician we hope for.
Barrack Obama because he represents the future of the country.
Hilary wins the ticket because Bill and Al Gore have such an influence on the party that they will make this happen. Biden like Dean and Hagel is too good to be in the White House. The country isn't far enough along to elect someone of a minority so Obama has no shot.

A McCain vs. Hilary race would be great. I really don't know who would win it.
 
It just amazes me to read some comments in this thread, where even Americans supportive of a woman or a member of a minority being President write off the chances of it happening because the country evidently isn't "ready for it". What kind of a pathetic Stone Age is the US stuck in?!

In comparison, in New Zealand, all of our highest offices are held by women: the reigning monarch, the Prime Minister (the second female PM in a row), the Chief Justice, the Speaker of Parliament, and the Governor-General (though Dame Silvia Cartwright's term as Governor-General is over and will soon be transferred to a man). I don't see why a candidate's sex or race is even an issue; if a candidate has the policies and abilities, anyone who doesn't vote for them just because the person is female or of a minority is frankly a moron and should be sent back to primary school to learn a thing or two.

If a woman or member of a minority can't get elected as President, the US should be ashamed of itself.
 
Axver said:
If a woman or member of a minority can't get elected as President, the US should be ashamed of itself.

You are completely right, Axver. I love the fact that other countries are lead by people of all groups and both sexes. The truth is the US should be ashamed by the country as a whole. We are such an advanced country but for some reason we lack the tolerance to elect with the same kind of equality found in other countries. It says something about a country when all thier presidents are white, male and of basically the same religion. I can't defend the part of this country, Axver.
 
Axver said:
It just amazes me to read some comments in this thread, where even Americans supportive of a woman or a member of a minority being President write off the chances of it happening because the country evidently isn't "ready for it". What kind of a pathetic Stone Age is the US stuck in?!

Well I live here and I ask the same question. As far as a woman goes, perhaps you don't have to look much past FYM to see that people aren't "ready for it". That of course is a generalization, there are exceptions to that here- thankfully. Ones that I hold on to for dear life sometimes. I suppose as long as they're no longer on their periods, they're not "bitches" like Hillary, they still know their place and are not one of those strident feminists, and they're not "hags" they might have a chance :shrug:
 
melon said:


I think a lot of people will say this, but only because he has cultivated a very strong image. His substance is still conservative, despite his token resistance that usually ends with him voting the party line.

But Americans are long known to vote primarily on image and not on substance. McCain certainly has the advantage on that front.

Melon

Exactly. She doesn't really follow politics much, and has that opinion as your typical voter. She pays some attention to the debates and the issues running up to the election, but I'd say she is your typical voter. McCain has a good chance because of this.

On the flip side, as one person I know pointed out, if Clinton runs, women may feel like they HAVE to vote for her, because they just need it to happen once to make all of the doubt go away. I have never said this to a woman, but I'd be interested to hear how they feel.

I, by the way, am an independent and will vote after watching both candidates in the months going up to ... wait, I'll be 17 in 08...damn.
 
Last edited:
Lord no please not Hillary :no: She'd get creamed in a general election.


Glad to see folks other than myself plugging Warner.


There are some fine women senators I'd love to see run for president, but other than Hillary I don't think any of them want to run unfortunately.
 
I think Warner is shit out of luck to be honest, unless he moves to the left a bit. Just a sense I get about how the Dem primaries will go, particularly if they end up winning big this November.

I love Feingold. After melon linked to his wiki page, I watched some of his old campaign ads - fabulous! I really like Wes Clark as a human being, not necessarily a presidential candidate. Plus I think he's kind of old-man hot, so sue me. :wink:
 
anitram said:
I think Warner is shit out of luck to be honest, unless he moves to the left a bit. Just a sense I get about how the Dem primaries will go, particularly if they end up winning big this November.

I love Feingold. After melon linked to his wiki page, I watched some of his old campaign ads - fabulous! I really like Wes Clark as a human being, not necessarily a presidential candidate. Plus I think he's kind of old-man hot, so sue me. :wink:

Clark is pretty good looking...though you'd be suprised how short and small he is :huh:

Feingold's great, but could he pull off a general election win?

There's a lot to happen between now and '08. The results on Nov. 7 will be significant to see how things will go.
 
Axver said:


In comparison, in New Zealand, all of our highest offices are held by women: the reigning monarch,

It just occured to me that women have held positions of great political power for years from Hatshepsut in ancient Egypt to Catherine the Great of Russia to Elizabeth I in England (heck she even got an Era named after her). Yet in democracy, especially American democracy, women have been kept from the highest office in the land. If anything, history should be evidence enough that women are every bit as capable as men of leading the world's most powerful nation.
 
In addition to the obvious social prejudices, I think peculiarly(?) American notions of what sort of figure the President is supposed to be come into play here, too--there's a cultural tendency to crave a sort of dad/Patriarch persona for that office, I think, which can encompass a fairly wide array of personalities perhaps, but they still have to fall within a certain familiar archetypal range, or else they just won't be seen as having that "face of the nation" quality. Sounds laughable probably, I know...

When I lived in India, I found it funny (in an unpleasant way) to realize how many more women (and religious/ethnic minorities) proportionally there were in politics there--as chief ministers of states, MPs, even a female Prime Minister at one point of course--despite the fact that few here would think of India as being "ahead" of us in terms of women's place in society. Several other South Asian countries--Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka--have had female prime ministers as well. Of course these kinds of opportunities are far beyond the reach of many if not most Indian women (and men, for that matter) due to other kinds of social barriers, and for sure not all the above were politicians of great integrity--but still it was a surprising and rather embarrassing realization for me as an American.
 
Last edited:
maycocksean said:


It just occured to me that women have held positions of great political power for years from Hatshepsut in ancient Egypt to Catherine the Great of Russia to Elizabeth I in England (heck she even got an Era named after her). Yet in democracy, especially American democracy, women have been kept from the highest office in the land. If anything, history should be evidence enough that women are every bit as capable as men of leading the world's most powerful nation.

Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with democracy?! Then you'd be right. Spreading democracy around the world especially in the Middle East will not give women what they deserve, a chance to become the leader of thier country. Popular vote or vote in the current US format, will deny women that right everytime because a bias exists not only in the rest of the world but in the US as well, that women are not able to function as leaders.
In my opinion, I would say that women can make better leaders than men in alot of ways. The highest of which is that men are less likely to utilize temperance when dealing with others. I would love to have a strong-willed woman in the White House.
 
yolland said:
In addition to the obvious social prejudices, I think peculiarly(?) American notions of what sort of figure the President is supposed to be come into play here, too--there's a cultural tendency to crave a sort of dad/Patriarch persona for that office, I think, which can encompass a fairly wide array of personalities perhaps, but they still have to fall within a certain familiar archetypal range, or else they just won't be seen as having that "face of the nation" quality. Sounds laughable probably, I know...


no, i think this is quite right.

there's an element of "leader of the world" tied into notions of what a president should be and look like, and that's wrapped up in notions of masculinity where guts and instinct and "balls" matter more than brains. the ability to make decisions quickly and the emphasis on results -- as opposed to more parlimentary notions of process and "fairness" and inclusion through coalition buildling -- seem to me to be tied up into American notions of government. European-style coalitons don't mesh with the dynamism (impatience?) of American culture.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Giuliani / Romney :hmm:

Giuliani has no, NONE, chance to get the Rep. nom.

That said, Romney, IMO, is the front runner for the REPS.
Why? Because has the shortest track record and the biggest name.

Take a look at Governors of States and Presidential elections, it takes nothing more than a casual look.

76, 80, 84. 92, 96, 00, 04 all Governors who won.
88 was a VP of a Governor

Concerning Rudy, I think he might be able to opt out to a 3rd party and make some noise, especially if the left is churning out an anti-war candidate and the right is doling out more of the same, it's a great opportunity for our country. Will it happen? I'd guess not.

He is nothing that the right wing wants and McCain is nothing that the moderates (Indys and Dems) want. Romney might slice it down the middle and take on yet another Democratic Senator. Don't count out Biden, y'alls. He might have faults, who doesn't? He's a straight talker with a resume. Why not?
 
I do not believe Biden has a chance. He had to drop out in 1988 because of a minor plagiarism scandal.
 
Never liked him anyway.

Chuck Hagel pipes in on November and beyond:

"I think we've lost our way," Hagel said. "And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable."
 
Hopefully, the Greens won't roll over and play dead like last time, deciding to not campaign in "swing" states. Luckily, Nader ran as an independent and my vote went to a just cause.
 
Back
Top Bottom